Little Green Footballs

Monday, July 10, 2006

The 60th anniversary of the last Jewish Pogrom in Europe passed a few days ago. Note, it was carried out by our friends in New Europe, so perhaps that's the reason it went under Charles Johnson's radar. The mainstream media covered the story extensively...

2 comments:

There are any number of reasons why Charles would not comment on the two stories you cite. Maybe he is conveniently and dishonestly ignoring them as you suggest. Or, as the most elementary explanation, maybe he just isn't aware of them.

But assuming he has read them, I suspect he hasn't linked to them for the simple reason that they aren't relevant to his blog. Charles does most of his blogging on the current, widespread threat posed to the West by international Islamofascism. The Jewish pogrom story is about events six decades in the past which have no connection to current threats to Jewish or Israeli security. The article about the murdered Briton presents not even the slightest reason to believe he was attacked because he was Jewish. Neither story relates to the purpose of his blog, and neither gainsays his contention that Islamofascism presents the greatest current danger to Western civilization.

You can oppose his thesis if you like, but not by adducing such stories as these.

What incredible theories I could devise based on the stories you choose not to cover! You claim you are "keeping an eye" on LGF and its readers, yet you comment on perhaps a mere one in ten of Charles's posts, and an even more minuscule fraction of the comments left on his website.

Shall I conclude therefore that you implicitly agree with everything you let pass without comment?

We, unlike Charles Johnson, do not claim or even strive to be part of a global MSM-smashing new Web media blog pajamadigm, or whatever he's calling LGF and its satellite operation Pajamas Media these days -- the very raison d'être of which is to chronicle the media's alleged failure to cover certain stories in particular ways, and to proffer an ideologically acceptable substitute.

If Charles & Co. are, as they seem to want to think, the new MSM, then they deserve the same degree of scrutiny that they currently dish out, don't you think?

Which we, as you point out, are unable to provide, simply because we all have day jobs and receive no funding from any source whatsoever.

As for the stories Charles chooses to cover (or not), your statement that Charles "does most of his blogging" about Islamofascism is somewhat undermined by his endless jihads against Markos Moulitsas Zúniga, formerly obscure left-wing college professors, John Kerry, the Democratic Underground, and so on and on and on ad nauseam.

Besides, he recently covered an ugly anti-Semitic incident that took place in eastern Germany. Yet when equally ugly anti-Semitic (not to mention anti-gay, anti-Asian, anti-black, etc.) attacks occur in countries he happens not to loathe, he's curiously silent. Unless, of course, the crimes in question are committed by Muslims, in which case they magically become newsworthy.

Charles Johnson is, in short, a one-note, two-bit propagandist. If you're unable to perceive that, it's probably because you've been taken in.